Ontopic Hobby Lobby - Did the Supreme Court go to far?

Amstel said:
I can't say your misguided conclusion is fascinating.

There's lot's and lot's of people who misrepresent a situation to push their own beliefs. You're among them.

because a rock is being used as a paperweight doesn't make it a weapon. Except to those fanatics that are trying to ban weapons.
Click to expand...
There are also lots and lots of people who know how to use apostrophes. I'm also among them. It's a good group (the literate) to be among, really.

The facts of the matter are thus:
1) There are many Christian-oriented mutual funds out there. It would be trivial to limit Hobby Lobby's employees to using them.
2) There is no instance where these four pills-of-many-uses are covered by Hobby Lobby's insurance, regardless of the intent of prescription.
 
Ah, you claiming victory means your the victor. This must be the internet.




if it makes you sleep better. Sure.

Substance: They don't want to be part of providing abortifacients as HL believes they are. This has been reviewed ad nauseam. If you want to discuss any of those being provided to the patient that doesn't do that let's go. If they'll make the best paperweight and they're medically required, I'm I'll for it. HL says they don't want to be part of it's use it as an abortifacient.

For instance, misguided fanatics will say that the copper IUD can prevent pregnancy. They're right. It does that by not providing the fertilized egg a place to implant. That's an abortifacient. They like to leave that last part out, and also ignore that the other 16 contraceptive measures HL provides prevent fertilization of the egg. Just not the 4 you're grandstanding about.
 
Amstel said:
Ah, you claiming victory means your the victor. This must be the internet.




if it makes you sleep better. Sure.

Substance: They don't want to be part of providing abortifacients as HL believes they are. This has been reviewed ad nauseam. If you want to discuss any of those being provided to the patient that doesn't do that let's go. If they'll make the best paperweight and they're medically required, I'm I'll for it. HL says they don't want to be part of it's use it as an abortifacient.

For instance, misguided fanatics will say that the copper IUD can prevent pregnancy. They're right. It does that by not providing the fertilized egg a place to implant. That's an abortifacient. They like to leave that last part out, and also ignore that the other 16 contraceptive measures HL provides prevent fertilization of the egg. Just not the 4 you're grandstanding about.
Click to expand...
Substance: in the same way HL is contracting to a 3rd party provider for its 401(k), where it's ABSOLUTELY OK to sell abortion pills, they're contracting to a 3rd party provider for their health insurance, where it's ABSOLUTELY WRONG to buy abortion pills. Knowing how insurance companies work, HL's contributions go into a general fund that does help pay out on abortion pills, just not for HL's employees. Swing and a miss for Jeebus!

This speaks volumes to HL's commitment to their deeply-held Christian beliefs.

Also, if HL's preferred doctrine suggest that life begins at conception, then about 7 in 10 "lives" are ended in terrible murder. It's one of those logical inconsistencies that modern-day Protestants have thus far completely failed to address, since surely Jesus loves all of those children that, for whatever reason, didn't implant in the barren womb-hellscapes of those turrible sluts who got conceptionized with insufficient faith, or didn't close their neural tubes, or whatever.
 
  • Gravy
Reactions: 123
Finally, aren't you (@Amstel) the very same idiot that argued that employer-provided health insurance (among other benefits) is just reappropriated salary (and therefore we should all be self-employed)? In that case, it's really none of HL's business how that money gets spent.
 
  • Gravy
Reactions: 123
Jehannum said:
Finally, aren't you (@Amstel) the very same idiot that argued that employer-provided health insurance (among other benefits) is just reappropriated salary (and therefore we should all be self-employed)? In that case, it's really none of HL's business how that money gets spent.
Click to expand...

I have no clue on how many different directions you're trying to twist things here.

As I posted in the past, if HL puts a snack machine in their breakroom and stocks it themselves, it doesn't preclude the employees from getting their own food. And it's not a travesty that the employees don't have a say in what goes in the snack machine like they don't have a say as to what products HL carries. The employees can quit HL and search the country for the job that will provide the best snack machine fixin's if they're not happy with the ones being provided. They're actually free to do that.

I already know you won't get this.
 
Amstel said:
I have no clue on how many different directions you're trying to twist things here.

As I posted in the past, if HL puts a snack machine in their breakroom and stocks it themselves, it doesn't preclude the employees from getting their own food. And it's not a travesty that the employees don't have a say in what goes in the snack machine like they don't have a say as to what products HL carries. The employees can quit HL and search the country for the job that will provide the best snack machine fixin's if they're not happy with the ones being provided. They're actually free to do that.

I already know you won't get this.
Click to expand...
That's immaterial to the argument.

The argument, in your dopey snack-machine analogy, is that the government has published a minimum required snack machine manifest, that Hobby Lobby is now exempt from because they believe that skittles are the tools of the devil. And also that women who have sex without the intention of reproduction are sluts.
 
Jehannum said:
That's immaterial to the argument.

The argument, in your dopey snack-machine analogy, is that the government has published a minimum required snack machine manifest, that Hobby Lobby is now exempt from because they believe that skittles are the tools of the devil.
Click to expand...
no. it just goes against their protected religious beliefs you drama queen.

Jehannum said:
And also that women who have sex without the intention of reproduction are sluts.
Click to expand...
It's statements like this that make me understand how wildly uninformed you are.
 
Amstel said:
no. it just goes against their protected religious beliefs you drama queen.
Click to expand...

Their RFRA-protected religious beliefs should have been disregarded in favor of a baseline set of coverages for every employee covered by health insurance. That's the crux of the argument. It should have been disregarded for a couple practical reasons:
1) HL pays into the general fund of their 3rd party insurer, which means that surely some money they put in goes to pay the claims of some other company in the pool, provided the insurer covers any of the 4 abortion pills for any of their other clients
2) the overriding necessity of establishing a baseline of coverage (after all, closely held companies are a majority of the companies in our wonderful oligarchy). You're, of course, free to disagree and hold that them MOOSLIM-held corporations should be allowed deny gelatin coatings and equine anti-venins to their employees based on their equally-invalid sky-fairy doctrine, but somehow I doubt that you would find those strictures to be binding.

The church of not paying income tax has been defeated every single time despite claiming RFRA protection, this should be no different.

It's statements like this that make me understand how wildly uninformed you are.
Click to expand...

It's what's known as a joke. Not surprising that you missed it, given how wildly unintelligent you are.
 
Jehannum said:
The entire thread is an exercise in second-guessing the court's decision. It doesn't matter if the court's on my side or not.

And also, those 3 pills and 1 IUD don't end life.
Click to expand...
Don't start another stupid ass argument about "life"

It's all circular reasoning
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back